Does a Creator Make Sense?

[Byfaithalone1]

I expected more of you.

OK.

Would you please respond to the questions I raised in post #25.

Yes. I will. I've given this some more thought and your questions were quite helpful. Thank you. I'll respond in a separate post.

Until then, I wanted to deal directly with your statement that I expect you to accept a creationist perspective. You've made several similar statements in prior posts and I think I've done a poor job of communicating with you. I'm not on some big mission to try and convince you that you're wrong or to ask you to follow the same path of discovery that I'm currently on.

I have no desire to push anything on you that you don't want.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

(1) Please give a comprehensive statement of creationism. Here I am particularly interested in why you see it as a science, how we can test it and how we can differentiate the myriad different "brands" of creation science from mere creation myths.

Perhaps it isn't a science. Perhaps I have been misguided all along. Perhaps God must be experienced and cannot be scientifically tested. You have given me much to ponder. Thanks for that!

(2) Define any technical terms that you think are likely to be misunderstood.

"Religion" and "faith" seem to be terms we view differently.

(3) Provide the positive evidence for creationism. Here I am not interested in failings of existing science theories as this is not evidence FOR creationism. A good example would be some example that is unambiguously predicted by it.

If faith is the evidence of things unseen, then perhaps there is no direct evidence that would be compelling from a scientific perspective. And yet I have experienced God. That experience has changed my life. Perhaps there are certain experiences that cannot be described in imperical terms.

We have not yet established which creationist perspective you expect me to accept.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no expectations. I would never want you to follow after religion for the sake of following after religion. In fact, it is my sincere hope that you would never do so. I don't.

My major objection to classifying any form of creationism as science is the common, non-falsifiable claim that a supernatural force is responsible for the biodiversity we observe.

I don't mean to be cute, but does this differ from the big bang?

Nevertheless, there are some specific brands of creationism that do make some falsifiable claims.

Thanks for this concession.

I'm sure you believe the same as I do.

I'd guess that we have many things in common.

Can you please explain how you know this and why it advances your argument that the big bang theory is incorrect? For one thing, beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder

I agree. Perhaps science cannot measure color, shape and symmetry, just as science cannot measure grace and hope and love. Such things can be experienced, but they cannot be quantified.

Finally, the idea that there is a creator sheds is no more light on the concept of beauty than the idea of the big bang.

OK.

Can you explain why there is a god rather than no god?

I can no more explain why there is a God than I can explain why there was a big bang. All I know is that I have experienced one and not the other.

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

We have not yet established which creationist perspective you expect me to accept.
​

As I mentioned earlier, I have no expectations. I would never want you to follow after religion for the sake of following after religion. In fact, it is my sincere hope that you would never do so. I don't.

Yet you have suggested that science be conducted according to a religious perspective. There are many religious perspectives that conflict with each other. Take for example young earth creationism (the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old) and old earth creationism (the belief that it could be billions of years old, but still created by god in its current form). Or even the Catholic view that evolution occurs but that it is guided by god. How can one legitimately conduct a scientific enquiry into the origins of the earth and biodiversity while embracing all of these perspectives?

My major objection to classifying any form of creationism as science is the common, non-falsifiable claim that a supernatural force is responsible for the biodiversity we observe.
​

I don't mean to be cute, but does this differ from the big bang?

I think you misconstrue what the big bang theory relates to. It is not a theory about what caused the universe to exist, but an exploration of how the universe has evolved. If you read the literature you will see that it deals with events subsequent to time t=0 such as inflation, the distribution of matter and radiation, etc.. There are some speculations about what might have been "before" t=0, but none has been tested sufficiently to become part of the theory.

I agree. Perhaps science cannot measure color, shape and symmetry, just as science cannot measure grace and hope and love. Such things can be experienced, but they cannot be quantified.

You've confused me here. Science can measure colour, shape and symmetry. Did you make a mistake in your post or do you really think these can't be measured?

I can no more explain why there is a God than I can explain why there was a big bang. All I know is that I have experienced one and not the other.

I presume you mean that you have experienced the big bang - or at least its consequences. Whenever you look into the night sky or take a breath you are experiencing the big bang!

AL

 

[Byfaithalone1]

There are many religious perspectives that conflict with each other.

Yes. I agree that this is true. There are also scientific theories that seem to conflict.

I presume you mean that you have experienced the big bang - or at least its consequences. Whenever you look into the night sky or take a breath you are experiencing the big bang!

I definitely sense that I am experiencing something when I look into the night sky, but the big bang just doesn't seem to explain that experience.

I also experience something when my daughter says a prayer or when I watch a brilliant sunset. My experiences don't fit within the scientific method because their impact cannot be measured. So I can understand why they may seem trite and silly to you.

I've experienced peace at times when chaos surrounded me. I've been calm in the middle of a crisis. I had a dream house come back on the market after being sold right out from under me. I've adopted without going through the process (i.e. circumstance fell into my lap) and I've met and married the woman of my dreams in a sea full of women who did not fit. These things can't be measured by science. I've had family members healed from incurable. To you, such things may be nothing more than the folly of a silly Christian. And that's OK. But to me, they mean something . . . and the big bang just doesn't answer my questions.

You've indicated that creation isn't a science and I am beginning to see your point. However, that doesn't perplex me because I don't really feel the need to explain all experiences through the lens of science.

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

There are many religious perspectives that conflict with each other.
​

Yes. I agree that this is true.

Then I would appreciate you explaining in precise terms how science should conduct its investigations with respect to "religious perspectives" as you put it.

When a scientist looks down a microscope or into a particle accelerator how should religion come into play?

I definitely sense that I am experiencing something when I look into the night sky, but the big bang just doesn't seem to explain that experience.

The big bang is not meant to explain the experience. That's something for the psychologists to hammer out. But it explains the observations that you make. It explains, for example, why the sky is largely black, why there are stars and clusters of stars.

I also experience something when my daughter says a prayer or when I watch a brilliant sunset. My experiences don't fit within the scientific method because their impact cannot be measured. So I can understand why they may seem trite and silly to you.

Actually the impact can be measured. During my post graduate research I used (and helped to extend) a number of psychometric techniques for quantifying such experiences. I'm not saying that we can currently explain why experiences like the ones you describe occur, but we can certainly measure their effects.

I've experienced peace at times when chaos surrounded me. I've been calm in the middle of a crisis. I had a dream house come back on the market after being sold right out from under me. I've adopted without going through the process (i.e. circumstance fell into my lap) and I've met and married the woman of my dreams in a sea full of women who did not fit. These things can't be measured by science. I've had family members healed from incurable. To you, such things may be nothing more than the folly of a silly Christian. And that's OK. But to me, they mean something . . . and the big bang just doesn't answer my questions.

You are making too much out of the big bang theory. It is a description of the development of our universe, not of personal experiences. Trying to apply it as you have is like trying to use a saucepan to watch television.

You've indicated that creation isn't a science and I am beginning to see your point. However, that doesn't perplex me because I don't really feel the need to explain all experiences through the lens of science.

BFA

Fair enough. I've been there too. The mystery to me is self awareness. It seems to me to be something greater than the sum of the constituent atoms that make up my body and brain. This mystery was one of the things that compelled me at one stage to be a believer. However, I began to realise that it might very well be explainable by natural processes.

There is a field of science that is devoted to exploring this. I've read some of the literature, but don't find it terrible convincing at this early stage in its development. Nevertheless, a compelling argument for the natural, rather than supernatural, explanation is the fact that our self awareness disappears when we are administered certain drugs (anaesthetics) or when or brain function is severely disturbed; as in the case of trauma and even drinking large amounts of alcohol.

AL

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Then I would appreciate you explaining in precise terms how science should conduct its investigations with respect to "religious perspectives" as you put it.

I really don't think science can test it, nor do I think that all experiences must be tested through science.

The big bang is not meant to explain the experience. That's something for the psychologists to hammer out.

Perhaps. However, Psychology is a science and not all experiences can be explained through science.

But it explains the observations that you make. It explains, for example, why the sky is largely black, why there are stars and clusters of stars.

It is one approach to explaining this, yes.

Actually the impact can be measured. During my post graduate research I used (and helped to extend) a number of psychometric techniques for quantifying such experiences. I'm not saying that we can currently explain why experiences like the ones you describe occur, but we can certainly measure their effects.

Fair enough. I was thinking more about identifying the source and/or understanding why they take place.

You are making too much out of the big bang theory. It is a description of the development of our universe, not of personal experiences. Trying to apply it as you have is like trying to use a saucepan to watch television.

Perhaps. And it could be that I've noticed new dimensions in my television by using a saucepan. I'm sure you won't mind if I do -- right?

Fair enough. I've been there too. The mystery to me is self awareness. It seems to me to be something greater than the sum of the constituent atoms that make up my body and brain. This mystery was one of the things that compelled me at one stage to be a believer. However, I began to realise that it might very well be explainable by natural processes. There is a field of science that is devoted to exploring this. I've read some of the literature, but don't find it terrible convincing at this early stage in its development. Nevertheless, a compelling argument for the natural, rather than supernatural, explanation is the fact that our self awareness disappears when we are administered certain drugs (anaesthetics) or when or brain function is severely disturbed; as in the case of trauma and even drinking large amounts of alcohol.

Interesting.

BFA

 

[Argy Lacedom]

I really don't think science can test it, nor do I think that all experiences must be tested through science.

Then what did you mean in your original comments that science should be done with a creationist perspective in mind? Are you now changing your mind?

Perhaps. However, Psychology is a science and not all experiences can be explained through science.

Well, I guess that depends on what you think science is. To me it is a process by which we examine the natural world by observation and testing. If experiences are part of the natural world then I see no reason to think they can't be explored by science.

It is one approach to explaining this, yes.

What better explanation can you put forward to explain why the sky is black and why stars and clusters of stars are distributed as they are? (Remember, any explanation must fit with other observations and other fields of knowledge.)

Fair enough. I was thinking more about identifying the source and/or understanding why they take place.

I see no reason why the scientific method could not, in principal, be applied to determine that. The path and solution might be difficult, but not inherently out of reach.

Perhaps. And it could be that I've noticed new dimensions in my television by using a saucepan. I'm sure you won't mind if I do -- right?

LOL!

AL